A Festschrift for Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief

(1)

(2)

THE CHANGING FACE OF ELT:

A Festschrift for Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief

(3)

THE CHANGING FACE OF ELT:

A Festschrift for Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief

Editors:

Nur Hayati Suharyadi Sri Andreani Utari Praba Astuti

Universitas Negeri Malang Anggota IKAPI No. 059/JTI/89 Anggota APPTI No. 002.103.1.09.2019

Jl. Semarang 5 (Jl. Gombong 1) Malang, Kode Pos 65145 Telp. (0341) 562391, 551312 psw 1453

(4)

Editors: Nur Hayati, dkk. – Cet. I – Malang: Penerbit Universitas Negeri Malang, 2021.

xviii, 204 hlm; 18,2 x 25,7 cm ISBN: 978-602-470-451-3

THE CHANGING FACE OF ELT:

A FESTSCHRIFT FOR PROF. ALI SAUKAH AND PROF. M. ADNAN LATIEF Editors: Nur Hayati, Suharyadi, Sri Andreani, & Utari Praba Astuti

Contributors:

1. Anik Nunuk Wulyani 11. Maria Hidayati 21. Sintha Tresnadewi 2. Bambang Yudi Cahyono 12. Meilisa Sindy Astika Ariyanto 22. Siti Muniroh 3. Flora D. Floris 13. Mirjam Anugerahwati 23. Sri Rachmajanti 4. Francisca Maria Ivone 14. Niamika El Khoiri 24. Suharmanto 5. Gunadi Harry Sulistyo 15. Nova Ariani 25. Suharyadi

6. Harits Masduqi 16. Novi Prihananto 26. Supong Tangkiengsirisin 7. Hasti Rachmaningtyas 17. Nur Hayati 27. Syamsul Hadi

8. Helena I. R. Agustien 18. Nur Mukminatien 28. Utami Widiati

9. Joko Nurkamto 19. Purnomo 29. Willy A. Renandya

10. Maisyaroh 20. Rahmati Putri Yaniafari 30. Zhenita Deliany

Cover design and formatting: Ibnuz Zaki

• Hak cipta yang dilindungi:

Undang-undang pada : Penulis

Hak Penerbitan pada : Universitas Negeri Malang Dicetak oleh : Universitas Negeri Malang

Dilarang mengutip atau memperbanyak dalam bentuk apapuntanpa izin tertulis dari penulis. Isi diluar tanggung jawab Penerbit.

• Universitas Negeri Malang Anggota IKAPI No. 059/JTI/89

Anggota APPTI No. 002.103.1.09.2019

Jl. Semarang 5 (Jl. Gombong 1) Malang, Kode Pos 65145 Telp. (0341) 562391, 551312; psw. 1453

• Cetakan I:2021

(5)

Foreword

This year, 2021, is my second opportunity to write a foreword, notably to honor Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. Adnan Latief, who have retired as faculty members at the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). Both professors have dedicated their lives to the nation for more than 40 years of their career, educating teachers and students, sharing knowledge, researching and developing expertise, and publishing works in the field of English language teaching. They have spent most of their time and energy reading, thinking, working, and helping others. I dedicate these special remarks to both of them within two key words: similarities and differences.

Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. Adnan Latief are similar in some ways. Concerning their educational background, both of them graduated from the same university, The University of Iowa, USA, for their Master’s and doctorate degrees, at the same time, 1986 and 1990 respectively. They are also interested in similar fields: English language education, assessment, and curriculum. They have taught similar courses, such as, research method, assessment and evaluation, curriculum, and statistics, for both undergraduate and graduate students. At UM, both had important roles in the development of the institution: Prof. Ali Saukah was once the director of the graduate program, and Prof. Adnan Latief had served as a vice rector. As individuals, they have similar personality in terms of their love for their family and their keenness to help others.

Apart from the similarities, they also have some differences. For me, Prof. Ali Saukah tends to be more straightforward in addressing his concerns and is very objective, while Prof. Adnan Latief is a little more on the lenient and tolerant sides.

Regarding their active contribution to the development of national education, they have focused on different roles. Prof. Ali Saukah has been an active member of BSNP (Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan – Board for National Standards of Education) and a facilitator in national workshops on journal management and journal publication.

Meanwhile, Prof. Adnan Latief has been actively involved as an assessor in the BAN- PT (Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi – National Accreditation Board for Higher Education) and is often invited to workshops for accreditation preparation.

In tems of their social media activity, one unique difference is that Prof. Ali Saukah is now actively sharing his knowledge and ideas on YouTube, while Prof. Adnan Latief is sharing his thoughts more actively on Facebook.

All in all, both professors are our beloved teachers. They have significantly contributed to the development of English language education in the country. Their knowledge and ideas have been very useful and inspiring for us. To recognize their

(8)

dedication and honor their contribution, we publish this festschrift, an edited book consisting of chapters written by colleagues from the Department of English UM and other reputable universities. I do hope this book will be a collection of inspiring ideas and a symbol of a good rapport between us and Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof.

Adnan Latief.

Malang, June 2021 Suharyadi

Head, Department of English FS UM

(9)

Editors’ Preface

This festschrift is dedicated to Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief to acknowledge their great contribution to the field of ELT. It is a token of our sincere appreciation for the knowledge and experience they have generously shared with their students and colleagues, including us, the editors, and all contributors to this edited book.

This festschrift consists of 15 chapters written by a total of 30 academics from within the Department of English, Universitas Negeri Malang, and from other universities in Indonesia and overseas, including National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Thammasat University Thailand, Petra Christian University, Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta, Universitas Nasional Karangturi Semarang and Universitas Gajayana Malang. We gratefully thank all the authors for their invaluable contributions as well as their dedication and commitment during the preparation of this festschrift.

This festschrift is titled The Changing Face of ELT as it aims to contribute ideas to address the ever-evolving needs and challenges of English Language Teaching amidst the increasingly globalized world. The festschrift was also prepared and published during the time when the world was shaken by a pandemic that has impacted all aspects of life including, in particular, education and teaching and learning. Some chapters in this festschrift have specifically discussed lessons learnt in the context of ELT during the pandemic situations.

The festschrift consists of five sections which represent themes that are in line with the areas of interests of both Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief. The five sections or themes are Literacy, Teacher Education, Teacher Professional Development, Curriculum, and Assessment. The following is an overview of the chapters within each of the five sections.

The first section on “Literacy” includes two chapters. The first one is written by Willy A Renandya, Supong Tangkiengsirisin and Flora Debora Floris. They discuss in their chapter the connections between reading and writing, how reading can potentially support writing, and, more importantly, how teachers and students can work together to bridge the reading-writing gap by making use of such relevant theories as genre-based theory of language and language learning theories, i.e., the input and noticing hypotheses. The other chapter by Helena I. R. Agustien is based on a study she conducted in a junior high school in Semarang within the context of learning from home as the pandemic started to hit the city. She observed the literacy practices that happened during online lessons which involved written communication with no visual interactions. Despite the confusions due to the abrupt change of learning mode, she found a silver lining in terms of the development of the students’ language and their multimodal literacy.

The second section in the festschrift takes on the theme “Teacher Education”.

All five chapters under this theme are concerned with the education and training of pre-service teachers in the Indonesian context and how the quality of the program can be ensured and continually improved. The first chapter is written by Siti

(10)

Muniroh. She presents in her chapter an analysis of how the important notion of critical thinking is articulated in the policies for EFL teacher education in Indonesia. Her findings provide some feedback that could inform policy improvements. The next chapter by Joko Nurkamto discusses an empirical study he conducted to gauge students’ feedback on their online teaching-learning experience during the pandemic. He arrived with findings that would be beneficial for the improvement of instructional practice and policies.

The other three chapters under the theme “Teacher Education” concern the teaching practicum of pre-service teachers. The chapter written by Mirjam Anugerahwati investigates the perceptions of the students in an undergraduate English language education program on how well the courses on ELT they had taken prepared them for the teaching practicum. The study also gained feedback from the students on the necessary improvements to make with the contents and delivery of the courses. The following chapter by Bambang Yudi Cahyono and Zhenita Deliany report a study on student teachers’ use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in a suburban school. Through the study they identified the student teachers’ challenges in using EMI and provided a recommendation accordingly for teacher training institutions to better prepare their student teachers to overcome such challenges. The last chapter by Siti Muniroh, Syamsul Hadi, Maisyaroh and Purnomo is also concerned with student teachers’ practicum; more specifically, it addresses the issue of how reflective practice can be effectively promoted during the teaching internship. For this aim, the authors proposed a supervision model combining clinical supervision and lesson study.

The third section in the festschrift addresses the theme “Teacher Professional Development” with two chapters discussing studies involving in-service teachers.

The first chapter is written by Sri Rachmajanti and Gunadi Harry Sulistyo based on their study on teachers’ perceptions of Literature Circle Strategy after the teachers followed a series of workshops on the strategy. The findings revealed the strengths, challenges, opportunities and threats of the strategy seen from the teachers’ point of view. The other chapter by Nova Ariani, Sri Rachmajanti and Hasti Rahmaningtyas discusses the results of the authors’ study on the successful implementation of a training on process-oriented writing to improve in-service teachers’ writing competence and their ability to teach writing.

The fourth section in the festschrift contains three chapters that deal with the theme “Curriculum”. The first one is written by Novi Prihananto and Harits Masduqi. Their chapter presents a critical review of the communicative approach in the five curricula of English subject in Indonesia and provides some recommendations to policy makers and curriculum developers for the improvement of the secondary school English curriculum in Indonesia. The next chapter by Suharyadi also discusses a topic related to the curriculum of English subject for Indonesian secondary schools. In this case, he talks about the concepts of genre and text type in light of relevant literature. The chapter is aimed to contribute to improving teachers’ understanding of the genre-based approach in the curriculum.

The other chapter under the theme “Curriculum” is written by Nur Hayati, Maria Hidayati, Utami Widiati, and Suharmanto. The chapter reports a study that aims to revisit and improve the expected learning outcomes (ELOs) of a four-year

(11)

undergraduate English language education study program by examining the needs and feedback of relevant stakeholders. The findings are important for the development and review of the program curriculum and to ensure constructive alignment between the ELOs and the curriculum, instruction and assessment in the program.

The last section in the festschrift is concerned with “Assessment”. There are three chapters written under this theme. The first chapter by Sintha Tresnadewi, Sri Rachmajanti and Francisca Maria Ivone is based on a study they conducted concerning the development of English prociency test for English teachers in Indonesia. The findings inform policy improvement in the efforts to continually ensure the quality of English teachers in the country, particularly in terms of their English language proficiency. The next two chapters under the theme are about assessment of writing. One is written by Nur Mukminatien, Rahmati Putri Yaniafari, Niamika El Khoiri, and Meilisa Sindy Astika Ariyanto. They present in their chapter the development of a genre-based scoring rubric to assess writing and the measurement of the rater reliability for the assessment using the rubric. Under certain conditions, the assessment using the rubric was found to be reliable, bearing implications for the benefits of using a rubric based on genres in assessing writing.

Their findings contribute to improving writing assessment and teacher practice.

The other chapter on the assessment of writing, which is also the last chapter in the festschrift, is written by Anik Nunuk Wulyani. More specifically, she discusses automated measures of L2 writing, in this case, the use of the Coh-metrix tool. Her study found that the tool is potentially powerful to assess writing particularly in terms of cohesive devices and lexical knowledge, and to facilitate learning from the comparisons between L1 and L2 texts.

Last but not least, our immense gratitude once again goes to all the contributors for giving their thoughts, time and energy to writing and revising their chapters. Without their dedication and commitment, the project would not be possible. We do hope this festschrift will be useful to the ELT community and could serve as a nice reminder of the inspirations and lessons shared by Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief.

Melbourne and Malang, June 2021

Festschrift Editors

Nur Hayati, Suharyadi, Sri Andreani, and Utari Praba Astuti

(12)

Contributors

Anik Nunuk Wulyani is an academic staff at Department of English, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. She obtained her master degree in Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia. She obtained her doctoral study in Victoria University of Wellington (VUW), New Zealand in 2017. She received the Indonesian Higher Education (DIKTI) scholarship when pursuing her doctorate degree and VUW Doctorate Scholarship to finish her degree. Her research interests include teacher professional development (TPD), English skill courses, and English language teaching. She has also received some research grants from the Ministry of Research and Technology. She can be reached at [email protected].

Bambang Yudi Cahyono is a Professor in Applied Linguistics at Universitas Negeri Malang, East Java, Indonesia. He earned his Undergraduate and Magister degrees in Education from the Institute of Teacher Training in Education at Malang (IKIP Malang), M.A. in Applied Linguistics from Concordia University, Montreal, Canada and Ph.D. in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics from the University of Melbourne, Australia. Most of his research deals with EFL writing, English teacher professional development, and ICT in ELT.

Flora Debora Floris is a senior lecturer at Petra Christian University, Indonesia.

Her main interests include language teacher professional development, English as an International Language, and technology-enhanced language learning.

Francisca Maria Ivone currently teaches at the Department of English, Universitas Negeri Malang in Indonesia. She has a Bachelor of Education from IKIP Malang, Indonesia, and a Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics from The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. She researches and publishes in the area of ELT, TELL, CALL, Extensive Listening and Viewing (EL/V), Extensive Reading (ER), learning autonomy, and collaborative learning. She is passionate about the use of technology in language teaching and learning. She also gives training to pre-service and in-service teachers on the use of technology in language teaching and learning, ER, and EL/V.

Gunadi Harry Sulistyo is a professor at the English Department, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). He co-authored a paper included in this festschrift before he passed away in early 2020. His research and publications concern mainly English learning assessment, research methods in EFL, and research statistics for quantitative data analyses in research on EFL and TEFL.

Harits Masduqi is a writer, researcher, and faculty member of the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. His research interests include Applied Linguistics, Creative Writing, Critical Thinking, Discourse Analysis, and Indonesian Studies. He earned his B.Ed. and M.Ed. in English from Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia and M.Ed. in TESOL from

(13)

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. He earned a Certificate in English Language Teaching from University of Cambridge, England and Certificate in Academic Success for Advanced Studies from The University of Sydney, Australia.

He has published academic articles/papers, poems, and short stories.

Hasti Rahmaningtyas earned a bachelor degree in English Language Teaching from Universitas Negeri Malang and a master’s degree in Applied Linguistics from The University of Adelaide, Australia. She teaches at the Department of English, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Negeri Malang. Her areas of interests include ELT and language learning technologies.

Helena I. R. Agustien is currently the dean of the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education (FKIP) at Universitas Nasional Karangturi in Semarang, Indonesia.

Previously, she worked for a state university called Universitas Negeri Semarang (Unnes) where she spent nearly 40 years of her career. She earned her BA degree in 1976 and her Dra. Degree in 1979, both in English education in IKIP Malang. She obtained her Master’s and Ph.D. degrees in applied linguistics in Macquarie University (Sydney) where she developed her interest in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). Her research interests include discourse studies, conversation analysis, grammar, and language curriculum. From 2008 to 2011, she became a language specialist and a teacher trainer at SEAMEO-RELC Singapore where she trained teachers from ASEAN countries and beyond. She was the chief editor of the RELC Journal and she is currently a reviewer of several journals including RELC (Singapore), AsiaTEFL (Seoul), IJAL (Bandung), TEFLIN Journal (Malang) and some other national journals in language and ELT.

Joko Nurkamto is a Professor of TESOL in the Department of English Language Education, the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education at Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia. He is currently the President of TEFLIN (The Association for the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia). His professional and research interests include language curriculum development and teacher professional development.

Maria Hidayati is a faculty member of the Department of English, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). She earned her undergraduate degree from UM majoring in English Literature and her Magister Pendidikan from the same university. Her areas of interests include teaching language skills, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics.

Currently, she is pursuing her Doctor in Education (EdD) at NIE, NTU, Singapore.

Maisyaroh is a faculty member of the Education Administration Department, Universitas Negeri Malang. She earned her doctor in Education Management from Universitas Negeri Malang in 2012. She graduated from IKIP Malang for Master of Education Management in 1991. Her research interests include education management, transformational leadership, and teaching supervision.

Meilisa Sindy Astika Ariyanto is an alumnus of ELT graduate program at Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). She joined the program in 2017 and graduated in 2019. She is currently working as an English tutor at a private institution in Malang.

(14)

She has had seven years of experience teaching English to students of different levels as well as lecturers and people of different professions. Her research interests are in the teaching of writing and speaking, technology in language teaching, and instructional media in English classes.

Mirjam Anugerahwati has been a faculty member in the Dept.of English since 1990.

She graduated from undergraduate studies (S1) from IKIP Malang in 1987, and earned her Master's Degree from the University of Queensland, Australia in 1998. In 2006 she contionued her postgraduate studies and earned her Doctoral Degree from Universitas Negeri Malang in 2009. Her main interests are TEFL, CCU, Curriculum Development, and Character Education. She is currently involved in writing modules for the Open University, reviewing articles in several journals, and training teachers with the Ministry of Education and Culture. She is also the Head of the Cambridge Assessment and International Education Centre, UM.

Niamika El Khoiri is a faculty member at the Department of English, Universitas Negeri Malang. She received her Master's degree in TESOL studies from the University of Queensland and a doctorate from Universitas Negeri Malang (UM).

Her areas of interest include the teaching of writing, critical thinking and professional development.

Nova Ariani is a faculty member the Department of English, Universitas Negeri Malang. She received a bachelor’s degree in English language teaching from Universitas Negeri Malang and a master’s degree in TESOL from Monash University. Her research interests include academic literacy and writing assessment.

Novi Prihananto is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Cultural Sciences, Gajayana University Malang. He obtained a Bachelor of English Education in 1986 from Malang State University and completed his English Education from the Postgraduate Program from the same university in 1994. he obtained a Ph.D. in the English Curriculum from the University of New England, Armidale NSW, Australia in 2019.

Nur Hayati is a faculty member of the English Department, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). She is currently doing her doctoral study at the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. Her main research interests are in the areas of teacher education and professional development, teacher cognition, reflective practice, and curriculum.

Nur Mukminatien is a professor in English Language Teaching at Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). Her research interests are methods of teaching, the teaching of writing and its approaches of assessment, instructional design, syllabus development and lesson planning. Her 44 year teaching experience started in Sekolah Indonesia Moscow, (SIM) in the Indonesian Embassy, Moscow, Russia in 1980, teaching in the Elementary School, Junior High School and Senior High School. In 1987 she was accepted in UM, and got her professorship in 2009. In addition to her teaching, as a senior professor, she spends her time for assisting

(15)

junior lecturers in conducting ELT research, community services, and help them publish articles for their professional development.

Purnomo is a faculty member of the Mechanical Engineering Department, Universitas Negeri Malang. He earned his doctor in Technology and Vocational Education from Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta in 2013. He graduated from IKIP Jakarta for Master of Technology and Vocational Education in 1991. His research interests include teacher education and teacher professional development.

Rahmati Putri Yaniafari is an academic staff member at the Department of English, Universitas Negeri Malang. She has a keen interest in English Language Teaching, especially Pronunciation Teaching, ESP, Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), and CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). Email:

[email protected]

Sintha Tresnadewi is a member of the teaching staff in the Department of English, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia who teaches English and ELT courses, particularly assessment courses. She has been interested in assessment since she was in her graduate program and has done some studies on it. Her other research interests include autonomous learning, the teaching of English as a foreign language, and current issues in education.

Siti Muniroh is a faculty member of the English Department, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM), Indonesia. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in ELT (English Language Teaching) from Universitas Negeri Malang in 2001. She earned Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics from the University of Queensland, Australia in 2007, sponsored by Australian Partnership Scholarship (APS). She completed her PhD in Faculty of Education, the Monash University of Australia in 2020, sponsored by LPDP scholarship (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education). Her research interests include EFL teacher education, teacher cognition, critical thinking, critical literacy, sociocultural theory, teacher professional development, curriculum and pedagogy, and EFL teaching methodology. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Sri Andreani is an academic staff member of the Department of English, Universitas Negeri Malang. She obtained her bachelor’s degree from IKIP Malang and received her master’s degree from the University of Leeds. She teaches reading and has a keen interest in reading assessment and materials development.

Sri Rachmajanti (Loeki) is a professor in ELT with expertise in Lesson Planning, TEFL and TEYL and earned her doctoral degree in ELT from Universitas Negeri Malang. She obtained her post graduate diplomas in Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand and RELC Singapore, and has been teaching at the English Department since 1986. In 2010 and 2018 she was respectively awarded to be visiting scholars at University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. She is also a national trainer for English teachers- ToT as part of the Ministry of Education and Culture. In addition, she has published articles in a number of national and international journals and published text books

(16)

for young learners (‘English for the Elementary School’ in six volumes, "Learning by Doing" in six volumes accompanied by CD with a collection of English songs, and sets of flashcards) and reference books for university students (Speaking I, II, III, Assessment for EYL, Instructional Media for English Instruction, Constructive EFL Classes, and Instructional Strategies for EFL Classes), some of which have been awarded HKI.

Suharmanto is a retired senior lecturer, who worked at the English Department, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM) for 35 years. He earned his Doctoral Degree in English Education from Postgraduate Program, UM, in 2006. His interests are in TEFL and research in education. Before his retirement, he was actively involved in pre- and in-service teacher education and professional development, as well as in the management of the Faculty of Letters, UM, where he was appointed twice as a vice dean and the director of the Center for Language and Culture at the faculty.

Suharyadi is a faculty member at the Department of English Faculty of Letters Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. His interests include systemic functional linguistics, genre pedagogy, teacher professional development, error analysis, and teacher knowledge.

Supong Tangkiengsirisin is an Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics at the Language Institute of Thammasat University. His research interests include Second Language Writing, Written Discourse Analysis, English for Academic Purposes, and English as a Lingua Franca.

Syamsul Hadi is a faculty member of the Mechanical Engineering Department, Universitas Negeri Malang. He earned his doctor in Education Management from Universitas Negeri Malang in 2008. He graduated from Deakin University, Australia, for Master of Mathematics Education, in 1997. His research interests include collaborative learning, teaching methodology, and transformational leadership.

Utami Widiati is currently the dean of the Faculty of Letters (Fakultas Sastra – FS), Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). She earned her undergraduate degree from IKIP MALANG in 1989, majoring in English language education, and completed her Master’s at University of London, UK, in 1996, and her doctoral degree in education at Monash University, Australia, in 2004. She obtained her professorship in the area of literacy learning in 2009. Her research interests include foreign language literacy, SLA, curriculum and material development, and teacher professional development.

She has been active in pre- and in-service teacher education and professional development in Indonesia and has written secondary school English textbooks prescribed by the Indonesian government. She also serves as the chief editor for TEFLIN Journal and a reviewer of several other journals in the field of ELT.

Utari Praba Astuti is a faculty member of the English Department of Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. She earned her Doctoral degree in Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. Her research interests are in the areas of English skill courses, TEFL, and materials development.

(17)

Willy A Renandya is a language teacher educator with extensive teaching experience in Asia. He currently teaches applied linguistics courses at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is a frequent plenary speaker at ELT international conferences and has published extensively in the area of second language education. His publications include Language Teaching Methodology: An anthology of current practice (2002, Cambridge University Press), Student-centred cooperative learning (2019, Springer International), and a recently published book chapter Growing Our Research Impact (2020, Springer International). He maintains a large language teacher professional development forum called Teacher Voices: https://www.facebook.com/groups/teachervoices/.

Zhenita Deliany is a full-time graduate student. She finished her undergraduate program at Jember University, East Java, Indonesia, in 2018, majoring in ELT. She is now pursuing her Master’s in the same major at Universitas Negeri Malang, East Java, Indonesia.

(18)

Section One Literacy

Section One

Literacy

(19)

1

Bridging the Reading-Writing Gap in Second Language Learning

Willy A. Renandya [email protected]

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Supong Tangkiengsirisin

[email protected]

Language Institute, Thammasat University, Thailand Flora D. Floris

[email protected]

Petra Christian University, Indonesia

“If reading and writing really were identical and not just similar, then…everything learned in one would automatically transfer to the other”

(Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000, p. 43).

Abstract

Research shows that reading and writing are closely connected. Students who can read well can be expected to write well. However, repeated observations show that this is not always the case. Students who have developed an advanced reading ability often continue to experience difficulty when they try to express themselves in writing. This chapter first discusses oft-cited sources of students’ writing difficulties, which typically involve difficulties at the linguistic (e.g., vocabulary, grammar and text structure) and cognitive levels (e.g., selecting relevant contents, connecting different parts of the writing).The next part of the chapter explores the relationship between reading and writing in detail, highlighting areas that need to be linked more tightly together. The last section presents an instructional model that promotes more efficient input processing and focused noticing of linguistic features found in the target text. The model also encourages student writers to engage in writerly reading and readerly writing to further strengthen their writing proficiency.

Keywords: reading and writing connection, L2 reading, L2 writing, ELT Introduction

To beginning second or foreign language learners, all four language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing can be equally demanding. This is not surprising as beginning language learners have to acquire a completely new linguistic system that is often vastly different from their native language. Consider, for example, a Thai student learning English as a foreign language. The Thai writing

(20)

system is completely different from English so Thai students need to learn a whole new set of the English writing system. Thai is a syllable-timed language, i.e., each syllable receives equal amounts of stress. English, on the other hand, is a stress- timed language, i.e., different syllables receive different amounts of stress with some receiving no stress at all. There are many other differences between the two languages, which can add a substantial learning burden for students at the early stages of learning English.

However, as these learners move up the proficiency scale, they find that the two receptive skills of reading and listening are quite manageable. They become more skilful in dealing with a variety of spoken and written text, i.e., they can read and listen to academic and non-academic texts with a fairly high degree of comprehension. This is often demonstrated by their performance on standardized second language proficiency tests (e.g., TOEFL or IELTS). For advanced level students, it is not uncommon to see scores in the IELTS 8 -9 bands. But the other two skills, speaking and writing, continue to be quite demanding. They continue to speak haltingly and often fumble to find the right words to express their thoughts and ideas, in particular when the topic is quite abstract and complex.

The most demanding skill for students at this level of proficiency is writing.

Their writing skills seem to be stuck at the B1 – B2 range and progress beyond this level seems to be very slow and difficult. As faculty involved in screening applications from international students, we have seen a wide range of their English proficiency test scores. The majority have an acceptable overall IELTS score of 7.0 or 7.5 (the minimum requirement for admissions into a graduate programme), but closer inspection reveals higher scores on the reading and listening sections of the test and lower scores on the speaking and writing tests. Their writing scores tend to hover in the 6.0 and 6.5 range. Only a small number are in the IELTS 7.0 – 7.5 bands.

The 2018 IELTS test performance data (https://www. ielts.org/research/test- taker-performance) confirm our observation that the average writing scores for both the academic and general IELTS tests are lower compared to the other three skills. For the academic test, the average writing score is around 5.5, while the listening, reading and speaking scores are around 6.0 – 6.3. For the general test, the writing score is slightly higher, at around 6.1-6.2, but lower compared to the other skills, around 6.5 to 6.8.

A pertinent question for language teachers and researchers to ask is this: why is writing lagging behind the other three skills for students at the more advanced level of proficiency? To address this question, we need to examine the nature of writing and explore its key characteristics that make it difficult for students to acquire.

Why Is Writing Difficult?

It is no exaggeration that writing is perhaps one of the most linguistically and cognitively demanding language tasks. It is difficult for both L1 and L2 learners, perhaps more so for the latter than the former. We outline below some of the key characteristics of writing that can place a great deal of demand on the writer (Hyland, 2019; Lewis, 2009).

(21)

• Unlike spoken language which allows variations in style and format, written language is more structured (or even rigid) in terms of content, organization and language.

• Written language tends to be formal, characterized by the use of standard forms of grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary.

• Writing is context independent which means that writers rely solely on the text they have written on the printed page or computer screen. In speech, speakers use their voice, body language and contextual factors to communicate with their listeners.

• Sentences are typically longer and more complex in writing than in speaking.

Standard text signalling or connecting devices, such as, however, as a result, therefore, in addition, are often used to connect ideas within and between sentences and paragraphs. These text signals help the writer present their thoughts more coherently and help the readers navigate the text smoothly.

• Writers have to choose words carefully, making sure that they carry the intended meanings clearly and accurately. In speech, people can use words with loose meanings (e.g., stuff like that, the thing I said before, etc.) as the context can help explain what these words mean.

• Presenting the contents of an essay is also challenging. Writers must have good understanding of the needs of the audience so that they can include just the right amount of information in the essay.

• Academic writing poses greater difficulty to L2 writers. Not only do they need demonstrate disciplinary knowledge, they also need to strictly follow the rather complex rhetorical structures that characterize a piece of scientific essay (e.g., referencing style, standard format of writing the different sections of a research report).

• Writing is laborious and painfully slow. It requires sustained physical and mental effort. Student writers have to plan, write, revise and proof-read their essay before it is submitted or published.

In short, writing is both cognitively and linguistically demanding. For EFL student writers whose proficiency is still at the lower end of the scale, writing can also be emotionally taxing, a source of anxiety and frustration. Park’s (2020) recent study shows that the pressure of writing academic essays that emphasizes linguistic accuracy led to decreased confidence and increased anxiety among her college EFL students. She suggested that frequent free writing (a form of extensive writing) that focuses more on contents rather than forms can help alleviate students’ anxiety and might in fact help improve their overall writing fluency.

Due to the importance of writing for students’ academic achievements and also the fact that many students have difficulty with writing, the field of L2 writing continues to attract a lot of research attention. L2 writing researchers have investigated a wide range of topics such as the following (see Pelaez-Morales, 2017, for details):

• examining different approaches to teaching writing (e.g., process writing and genre-based writing)

(22)

• exploring the benefits of different writing approaches to diverse groups of students learning English in diverse contexts

• experimenting on different ways of providing feedback to students’ writing

• examining different curricular models for the teaching of writing in schools and universities

• exploring issues to do with such things as writer identity, authorial voice, cultural dimensions of writing, etc.

• examining the relationship between reading and writing

The last bullet point above is the focus of this chapter, i.e., examining the connection between reading and writing. We are interested in exploring in some depth the link between these two skills, in particular on how reading can lead to better writing. We know, as all of you do, that they are related, but what is the nature of their relationship? Is it a reciprocal relationship, i.e., that reading affects writing in the same way that writing affects reading? Is one a pre-condition for the other to happen, i.e., does reading precede writing? Is reading a causal variable, i.e., does more reading result in improvement in writing?

What Does Research Tell Us about the Reading and Writing Connections?

Years of research into the link between reading and writing tell us about the close, but not perfect, relationship between reading and writing. We summarize some of the key research findings below, in particular those that are of relevance to the discussion in our chapter here (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Grabe, 2001;

Hirvela, 2004; Hyland, 2019; Lee & Scharlett, 2016; Tsai, 2006).

• Reading is closely related to writing, so much so that some would say that they represent two sides of the same coin.

• Reading can improve writing; writing can improve reading.

• Children learn how to read first and then to write (in that order, at least initially).

• If a child can’t read, they also can’t write.

• Good readers tend to be good writers (but not always).

• Readers can be more strategic so that they can learn the contents and simultaneously acquire the rhetorical, syntactic and lexical features that the author used.

• Reading and writing should not be treated as separate skills; instead, they should be integrated and taught together in a single course.

The writing benefits that students can enjoy from reading are widely acknowledged by writing scholars. Summarizing decades of research on how reading contributes to wring development, Stotsky (1995) observed that “reading experience would seem to be the chief source of a developing writer’s syntactic, generic, and lexical knowledge” (p. 773).

However, research also tells us that reading does not automatically lead to good writing. Fitzgerald and Shanahan (2000), among others, observe that “If

(23)

reading and writing really were identical and not just similar, then…everything learned in one would automatically transfer to the other” (p. 43).

• Reading and writing are not identical cognitively, affectively and behaviourally.

• Reading is ‘receptive’; writing is ‘productive’; receptive knowledge does not automatically translate into productive knowledge.

• L2 learners need to learn to transition smoothly from the reading mode to the writing mode. This process takes time and effort.

• Even more advanced language users need to learn how to write more accurately, fluently and coherently.

It is not difficult to verify the research findings above, in particular on the link between good readers and good writers. Teachers whom we have met in our seminars and works would readily acknowledge the close connection between the two. Our own observations also show that both students and teachers who read a great deal tend to develop greater facility in writing. In addition, the more they read, the easier it is for them to put their thoughts in writing. An English teacher from Vietnam who was an avid reader recounted her experience with self-selected pleasure reading (also known as extensive reading) and concluded by saying

“reading makes reading and writing easier” (Nguyen Bach Nga, personal communication). Note that the keyword here is ‘easier’, not ‘easy’ which means that while reading provides a crucially important source of rhetorical and language input (which makes writing easier), students need to further develop their writing skills through guided or independent practice. For the latter, we are reminded of the advice given by Hemingway that like any other skills, daily practice is indispensable. In Hemingway’s words: “I write every morning”.

How to Bridge the Reading-Writing Gap?

Decades of research have provided important insights on the connection between reading and writing; however, we are nowhere close to developing a complete understanding about the reading-writing relations. Some of the key researchers in the field of L2 reading and writing connections (e.g., Grabe, 2001;

Hirvela, 2004) state that a comprehensive and definitive theoretical model is currently not available; but they suggest that we can draw important ideas from available research and use them as a guide for teaching. We agree fully with them, but would suggest that we also draw on our own experience as literacy teachers and writers to help us fill the missing puzzles.

We outline below five key factors that we believe would need to be considered when we try to help students transition smoothly from reading to writing. Table 1 below provides a quick summary of these five factors.

Table 1. Five Key Factors to Link Reading and Writing No. Factors Description of factors

1 Theory of language Genre theory 2 Theory of language

learning Input and noticing hypotheses

3 Teacher Role Use approaches that promote incidental and intentional learning

(24)

No. Factors Description of factors

4 Student Role Use strategies of good readers and writers 5 Language proficiency

threshold Upper intermediate level (around B2 level)

Theory of Language

There are many theories of language and it is beyond the scope of this chapter to explore all of them here. Richards and Rodgers (2014) discuss a number of language theories that have influenced the development of the language teaching methods and approaches in ELT. These include the structural, cognitive, functional, sociocultural, interactional, lexical and genre models of language. Communicative language teaching approaches, for example, were inspired primarily by the functional and interactional theories of language. Michael Lewis’ (1993) lexical approach, as the name suggests, is based on the lexical view of language. The genre theory has given rise to the popularity of the genre-based pedagogy.

We feel that the genre theory seems to be the most suitable for the purpose of our chapter. It is a well-articulated theory of language that draws on the work of Michael Halliday and his colleagues in Australia. The theory has also been translated into a genre-based or text-based approach to teaching language, which continues to be widely used in a number of language teaching contexts (e.g., EAP, CLIL and Text-based teaching). The main tenets of the theory are summarized below (Feez, 1998, p. 5, cited in Richards and Rodgers, 2014):

• Language is a resource for making meaning.

• The resource of language consists of a set of interrelated systems.

• Language users draw on this resource each time they use language.

• Language users create texts to create meaning.

• Texts are shaped by the social context in which they are used.

• The social context is shaped by the people using language.

In a nutshell and in more practical terms, it is a theory of language that considers a piece of written text in terms of its purpose, audience, context and language features. The first three elements, i.e., purpose, audience and context, determine the way the text is organized and the grammatical and lexical features that are commonly used. For example, a narrative text is written for entertainment purposes. It is typically organized around five elements, i.e., the characters, setting, plot, conflict and resolution, narrated in some chronological fashion. A story can be told in many different ways, but these typical elements are normally present.

Typical language features we often see include the past tenses, time sequence markers, direct and indirect sentence structures, etc.

The theory allows us to classify different text types according to their social purposes and also the distinctive language features and conventions associated with them. There are numerous text types (both oral and written), but for language teaching purposes, a small number has typically become the focus of instruction.

These include recounts, procedures, descriptions, reports, explanations and expositions. What is important to note here is that typical patterns of organization and recurring grammatical and lexical features associated with these text types can

(25)

be singled out for focused instruction, thus giving students opportunities to acquire these important text features (Hyland, 2019).

One last point to note is that texts are culturally bound. The texts we read or write usually reflect the cultures where they are created. For example, business emails are written differently by writers from different cultures. As readers, we should understand what writers from other cultures try to convey (both directly and indirectly) through their writing and communicative styles. However, as writers, we can use our styles (based on our cultures) but make sure we can get our message across internationally and interculturally. This ties in with recent trends in ELT that stresses the importance of using language that is internationally comprehensible and socio-culturally acceptable.

Theory of Language Learning

The ELT professional literature is replete with theories that attempt to explain how children and adults acquire, extend and maintain language proficiency. Some of these theories are short-lived (e.g., behaviourism) while others are still in use and continue to be used as theoretical frameworks for researching language acquisition (e.g., comprehensible input, social constructivism). We discuss below two SLA theories (comprehensible input and noticing hypothesis), that could be used to help us understand better the connection between reading and writing.

The input hypothesis states that language learning happens when students receive large amounts of comprehensible and interesting language. Three things are worth highlighting. First the theory posits that input is the sine qua non of language acquisition, i.e., it is a precondition for language learning. Without input, language learning simply cannot happen. Second, for optimal effect, students need to be surrounded with massive amounts of language, which, in practical terms, means daily exposure to easy and interesting language. Over time, students will have seen and internalized the numerous language features and rules present in the input.

Krashen (1984) for example puts forth the following argument:

If second language acquisition and the development of writing ability occur in the same way, writing ability is not learned but is acquired via extensive reading in which the focus of the reader is on the message, i.e., reading for genuine interest and/or for pleasure. Just as speech is hypothesized to be a result of comprehensible input, the ability to write is hypothesized to be the result of reading. Moreover, when enough reading is done, all the necessary grammatical structures and discourse rules for writing will automatically be presented to the writer in sufficient quantity. (p. 23)

The other SLA theory that could help link the reading-writing relations is Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis (2010). The main theoretical claims of this theory can be summarized below:

• Input is important but not sufficient.

• Learners need to consciously notice the language features present in the input.

• Noticing allows learners to turn input into intake, which after further processing gets incorporated into the learners’ acquired linguistic system.

(26)

While most people agree that noticing is central to language learning, the theory does not provide detailed information about the amount and intensity of noticing, which is critically important to consider when we work with lower proficiency L2 learners. Too much noticing can have adverse effects, resulting in L2 students experiencing information overload. For them, comprehending the contents alone is already quite challenging and takes up a lot of their attentional resources.

Doing both, comprehending and noticing, might add to their learning burden.

It is therefore important to strike a good balance between the two; instead of asking students to attend to every single language feature and rule, teachers can engage students in more focused noticing. When teaching a recount, for example, teachers can first direct students’ attention to the rhetorical structure (e.g., orientation, record of events in chronological order, reorientation and coda). Once students are familiar with this typical pattern of organization, the teacher can guide students to notice typical language features of recounts (e.g., the past tense, personal pronouns, indirect speech).

Two models that connect reading and writing have been proposed in the literature: the direct and indirect models (Hirvela, 2004). The indirect model suggests that reading alone provides sufficient language input for students’ writing development. Following an extended exposure to language input via extensive or pleasure reading, students’ writing skills will gradually bloom. This model draws heavily on the input hypothesis.

The indirect model, on the other hand, suggests that reading alone is not enough. Reading increases students’ reading skills, but not necessarily their writing skills. To improve on their writing, they need to consciously attend to the rhetorical, syntactic and lexical features that authors use to present their contents so that they can use these in their own writing at a later time. As we can see, this model is informed by the noticing theory, i.e., without noticing, students will not learn much from the input.

We believe the two models can be combined. Renandya and Day (2020), for example, suggest incorporating extensive reading in a writing course. Before students start writing an argumentative essay on eco-tourism, for example, the teacher can first highlight key rhetorical and language features of this text type. A set of relevant reading materials on ecotourism can then be assigned to students for focused reading. More specifically, students are guided to read the texts in a

‘reading to write’ manner (Hirvela, 2004, p 110), i.e., reading not only for information but also for the language features of the text.

Role of the Teacher

It should be clear from the previous discussion that a reading teacher should also be a writing teacher. This is so that the teacher can connect the two in a more coordinated manner. As Kroll (1993) writes, “Teaching writing without teaching reading is not teaching writing at all (p. 75)”. We can extend this by saying:

teaching reading without teaching writing is not teaching reading at all. Reading and writing are so closely related that people now use the term literacy to refer to the teaching of reading and writing.

(27)

Armed with a good understanding of a theory of language (genre theory), and language learning theories (comprehensible input and noticing hypotheses), the teacher can use pedagogical approaches that promote incidental learning via extensive reading and intentional learning via explicit and systematic teaching of textual features. A lot has been written about extensive reading and its numerous language learning benefits (see Ng et al., 2019; Renandya & Day, 2020), so we will focus more on the genre-based pedagogy that systematically links the genre theory and the noticing hypothesis.

Those of us who have used the genre-based pedagogy are familiar with the standard procedures outlined below.

• Building knowledge about the target text. This simply means explaining the social context and the purpose for which the text is written.

• Modelling and deconstructing the text. This refers to the teacher showing model texts and highlighting key language features.

• Scaffolding and joint construction. Here, additional guidance is provided before students write their own text.

It is the second step, modelling and deconstructing, that links with the noticing hypothesis. By drawing students’ attention to the way the text is organized and written, we are essentially telling the students to pause and think when they look at the model text so that they can make a conscious link between the what (contents) and the how (language), i.e., what linguistic resources and choices that author used to produce the text and whether and to what extent they have been successful in communicating the message in the most efficient, eloquent and coherent manner. When systematically done, we believe that there is a good chance that students may be able to express themselves in writing using the language features that they have attended to during classroom instruction.

Once students are ready to engage in independent writing practice, the teacher continues to play an important role. This is because writing often involves several rewritings. During this process, the teacher can provide focused feedback on students’ draft essays, pointing out both the strengths and weaknesses of their writing. The teacher can also encourage students to seek feedback from their peers and also learn how to critically assess their own writing.

Role of the Student

To become good writers, students need to become good readers. This statement flows from our earlier discussion on the two models (i.e., direct and indirect models) that connect reading and writing. The indirect model basically suggests that best ways to become good readers is by reading extensively in the language. The direct model suggests that students need to engage in writerly reading to learn the linguistic resources that writers use to produce their text.

We describe below some activities that can help students consciously and systematically attend to both the contents and the language.

• First, read a text like a reader. Students should first read a text for meaning, focusing on key ideas and important details. They can do this one or twice,

(28)

depending on the text they are reading. Reading an academic text for example often requires several readings for deeper comprehension.

• Second, read a text like a writer. This type of reading is also known as ‘mining or writerly reading’ (Hirvela, 2004, p. 110). This is where students need to apply the

‘pause and think’ technique we mentioned earlier. Their role here is not just as a spectator, but as a participant who actively mine rhetorical, linguistic and lexical features in the text (Hirvela, 2004).

• Third, write like a reader. Textual coherence is usually determined by the reader.

For a text that we create to be coherent, we need evaluation or judgement from the reader. Writing then should be reader-based, and student writers should keep in mind who their target audience is. As well as being a writerly reader, a student should also be a readerly (or reader-oriented) writer (Myhill et al., 2020).

When reading an abstract of an academic journal article for example, students should pay attention to its overall structure. The first sentence often provides the context of the study, the second sentence is about the purpose of the study which is then followed by the research methodology (i.e., participants, instruments, procedures), then results and implications. They should also notice the words, sentence structures, the tenses and other relevant language features.

Students will soon find that abstracts tend to be written in a rather formulaic manner. They will start noticing and remembering common phrases and expressions that writers use to craft their abstract. In time, they will be able to use these in their own writing. If they need further help, there is a very useful website that compiles hundreds of formulaic phrases and sentences found in academic writing. When introducing the importance of their research topic and inadequacy of past research, authors often use the following formulaic expressions (Source: http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/).

Importance of your research topic A key aspect of X is …

X is of interest because … X is a classic problem in … A primary concern of X is … X is an important aspect of …

X is at the heart of our understanding of Inadequacy of past research Previous studies of X have not dealt with … Researchers have not treated X in detail.

Most studies have only focused on … Such approaches have not addressed … Past studies are limited to local surveys…

Most studies failed to specify whether …

Once students have developed deeper understanding of key rhetorical and syntactic features, they would need to engage in extensive writing practice, which

(29)

can be done in the classroom under the guidance of the teacher, or out of the classroom where students do their independent writing practice. As we pointed earlier, daily writing practice is needed to help students write more fluently, accurately and coherently.

Language Threshold

The ideas we outlined above are generally applicable to students of different proficiency levels. Regardless of their proficiency levels, they can benefit from a systematic switch from a meaning-focused to form-focused mode of language learning; from a semantic to a more syntactic mode of processing. However, for academic writing, which is linguistically and cognitively more challenging than other types of writing, a certain level of proficiency may be needed. Higher proficiency students (B2 or C1) would benefit more from the noticing ideas discussed here. The reason is simple. These students have already had sufficient academic and linguistic background knowledge. What they need to do is to set aside their spare attentional resources to attend to important language features that writers use in the different sections of their academic papers. Further research is needed to determine the more precise threshold of proficiency above which EAP students would find writerly reading beneficial for their academic writing development.

Conclusions

We have discussed the relationship between reading and writing focusing in particular on how the former can be used as a springboard to develop the latter. In order to bring the two closer together, we suggested that we consider the genre- based theory of language and two well-established language learning theories, i.e., the input and noticing hypotheses. We conclude our discussion by offering the following pedagogical recommendations.

First, reading and writing should not be treated as two separate skills and taught in two separate courses. Students can learn more from an integrated literacy course under the guidance of a capable literacy teacher. This integrated course should ideally be taught by a teacher who is knowledgeable about the reading and writing. Alternatively, two teachers, one with expertise in reading and the other in writing, can co-teach the course. Second, a good literacy teacher should also be a good reader and writer. This way they can become a source of inspiration for the students and promote a healthy reading and writing culture. Third, to get optimal language learning benefits from the indirect model that connects reading and writing, students need extensive exposure to comprehensible and compelling language input. The best way to do this would be to implement an extensive reading and writing programme.

Fourth, to enjoy the full benefits of the direct model, students need to engage in writerly reading, noticing key textual features commonly associated with a specific text type (e.g., fiction or non-fiction). They should then consciously use these features when they write their term papers or when they write for other purposes outside the classroom. Fifth, research shows that explicit teaching of rhetorical

A Festschrift for Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief

THE CHANGING FACE OF ELT:

A Festschrift for Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief

THE CHANGING FACE OF ELT:

A Festschrift for Prof. Ali Saukah and Prof. M. Adnan Latief

Table of Contents

Foreword

Editors’ Preface

Contributors

Section One

Literacy

Bridging the Reading-Writing Gap in Second Language Learning